Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 1044 1988 SLD 1044 1988 PLC 390
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Application No. KAR-119 of 1986, heard on 3rd August, 1987.
ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD KHAQAN

VS

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others

Law:

Section:

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---Ss. 13(b) & 38(3-a)--Complaint--Dismissal of office-bearer of Trade Union--Application for registration of Trade Union pending before Registrar--Dismissal order passed during pendency of registration application--Complaint dismissed by Labour Court on ground that workman himself could not invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court and only Registrar had powers to file complaint--Plea in revision before Appellate Tribunal that aggrieved person could set in motion machinery of criminal Court, repelled--Such plea, held, was not applicable to proceedings under Labour Laws--Interference in revision refused by Appellate Tribunal. 1983 P L C 411 and P L D 1977 Kar. 145 held not applicable. Shafiq Qureshi for Applicant. Siddiq Mirza for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987. DECISION This is a suo motu revision application under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O. 1969, filed by the applicant /informant against an impugned order, dated 10-2-1985. passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, .oho had dismissed the complaint of the applicant being not sustainable. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant being an office-­bearer of Muhammad Farooq Textil Azad Mazdoor Union was dismissed by the respondents when they had intimation of an application before the Registrar of Trade Unions, dated 13-12-1984 for the formation as well as the registration of the said trade union. 3. The respondent establishment resisted the complaint by raising certain legal objections on the maintainability of the complaint besides the factual aspects. The first objection of the respondent establishment was that under section 9 of the Factories Act, a complaint can only be filed against the manager of the factory who is the proper person to answer the criminal liability because he was the person responsible for the administration, supervision…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492